I've heard this comment thrown in or argued for several times. I'd never even considered it, and I think that anyone with a grasp of history would argue against it, if for no other reason than that "all" is pretty difficult to defend.
So I started thinking of wars. The closest I can come up with may be the Crusades, and possibly the wars of Islamic expansion from centuries ago. My understanding is that most historians think that the crusades were more about reducing destruction in Europe by diverting armed and violent men to the middle east than actually fighting for religion's sake. I have to take that with a grain of salt though, because the few things I have read that were written by the Christian participants make me think that they really believed that they were "fighting for Christ." Even this being the case, I don't think religion "caused" the conflicts. I think it was used as an excuse for the conflict. Anyone that reads the New Testament objectively knows that physically initiating violence was not Jesus' way, or the object of his teachings.
The wars of the expansion of Islam can probably be seen in a similar fashion. In name they were to increase the religion/destroy the infidels, but in reality most of the teachings of Islam are peaceful.
Today's wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya can be viewed at a glance as a war between Christians and Muslims, therefore a war between religions, therefore religion caused the wars, but a view with any depth reveals that religion has nothing to do with the cause of these conflicts. At least not the West's part in them. The US went in due to terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, for oil, to promote democracy, because it's in US interests, to protect the innocent, to remove dictators, because George Bush Sr. didn't finish what he started, etc. Lots of reasons thrown around for the cause of the conflict, but is religion one of them, really? The US certainly doesn't act like it. The wars may benefit one Islamic group over another, but it doesn't benefit Christians. In other areas where Christians specifically are persecuted and killed (like Sudan), the US doesn't do anything so radical as direct military intervention.
While it may be true that Osama Bin Laden claimed religious reasons for attacking the Great Satan, 99% of muslims share a belief in Islam but don't even consider initiating violence against the US. Osama Bin Laden's violence wasn't because he was a muslim. Being a muslim allowed him a reason to express and direct his violence.
In other words, "religions don't kill people, people kill people." There are many terrorist groups that have no religious element at all to provide a reason for killing innocents. Ask any Colombian. What really upsets me is when people use this argument in an attack on religion. usually this comes from someone who's made science their religion. In World War II millions of Jews and others were killed because "science" indicated they were from inferior races.
The "science" they used was flawed and misinterpreted. Again, I would say it wasn't really science that caused these terrible events. Rather, it was people that used it as an excuse to do what they wanted to do.
It could be argued that science created the weapons that end life during every war in history. Science and religion are both tools that get used by those that hate, or desire power, to get what they want.
Showing posts with label revolutionary war. Show all posts
Showing posts with label revolutionary war. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Getting out of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.
In a news article, John McCain's views about American Isolationism within the Republican party are reviewed: http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iWsf0aTHNQJ-qYQTLPGD3mkfcgow?docId=CNG.7a567cd3fbd13227727a3b49b46b2540.121
120 fatalities reported in Benghazi
Many within the party are claiming that "we" shouldn't have gone into Libya. It's an easy and automatic claim to make, because the decision to go in was made by a Democratic president. The thought is "why should we get into anyone else's business?" And really, if the US were having an internal conflict, would we want some foreign powers from the other end of the world intervening to tip the balance? The historical answer to this question is YES!
Centrifuges in Libya in 2003
.jpg){kind=link}
Benjamin Franklin bent all his energies on convincing France to use its military strength to help the American colonists to expulse the British. When the French finally did send its navy to assist the US, the war ended quickly. Unlimited movement of troops along the coasts and unchallenged blocades of ports were no longer possible for the British. By all accounts, the aid of the French was a major factor in American independence.
The 1st days of the conflict when the people showed their will and before Gaddafi pulled out his biggest and deadliest military technology.
Libya. There is a majority of the people that prefer to choose their own political future rather than having a dictator choose it for them. The difference in military strength between the Americans and the British was much smaller than the military difference between Gaddafi and the rebels of Libya.
Quem Elma Lake, Libya
Photo from: http://www.justfoodnow.com/2011/03/22/libya-a-short-history-the-country-the-food-a-dictator/
The dictator thought at first that he could quell the rebellion through mostly threats. Using the military on civilians would look very bad for this newly reformed image. He was wrong. The rebels advanced close to Tripoli. Then he released his major firepower, and in a few days his powerful military was knocking on the doors of Benghazi before the international community stopped him. Gaddafi's military was far superior because it used technology that he obtained from the US, Western Europe, and Russia. Our technology allows him to easily overcome the will of the people.
Getting around, Libya style
Photo from: http://iamkoream.com/korea-vs-libya/
Do we help the people of Libya? I think it's hypocritical and heartless to let them fall to the military strength that the West has given their dictator. If someone's at your neighbor's house killing them, do you stand by and say, that's their business?
Willing to fight till the last drop of blood
Photo from: http://politicallyillustrated.com/index.php?/news_page/lpnh/2435/We can't be sure that Libya will become a democracy. There are a few friends of Osama Bin Laden (may he rot in Hell) fighting along side those that are fighting for democracy. It's not perfect. In our revolution, the American Indians had a major stake in helping the British, because they knew the colonists were all about moving westward, whereas the British were limiting the colonists' expansion into indian lands.
It started as a nonviolent and peaceful protest
Opinions on Libya: my own
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)